Silent bet again: When is an incorrect bet backed up, and when does it stand?

[Guillaume Gleize]

Hello !

Obvious case for me but apparently not for everybody:
NLH blinds 500-1000 Preflop:
Early player A bets 2200
Most players fold
Middle player B throws 1x5000 + 2x100 silently
Last players fold too
Dealer sends back 3x1000 to player B who says nothing
Dealer put the flop
Player A wants to bet then realize that something was wrong in player B preflop moves: he calls for the floor and says that it was a raise that should have change many things (he would have call etc.)!
Player B agrees it was a raise in his mind but didn't react when the dealer gave him back the change!

Your opinion?

[Nick C]

I agree it should have been a raise to 5200. However, after the dealer burns and turns, I would have to blame the player for not speaking out and saying raise. The bet stands and the hand continues. That's how I see it.

[MikeB]

I agree it should have been a raise to 5200. However, after the dealer burns and turns, I would have to blame the player for not speaking out and saying raise. The bet stands and the hand continues. That's how I see it.

Rule 1 Solution: Ditto Nick.... would add the whole table (including opponents) had an obligation to speak up preflop and didn't...

AND, you have a card burned and turned... huge issue, if you re-rule you may open yourself up to re-burns, re-shuffles, etc....

How did you rule in this case??

Thanks again for great example Guillaume!

[MikeB]

Also started a new suggestion thread on the subject of incorrect bets: when to back them up, and when to rule that they stand....

http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?topic=1050.0

[BIG AL]

I agree that player B played rais. Obviously the dealer is wrong. But players A and B had enough time to stop the dealers. Another player went before the dealer opened the flop. My decision would be to continue playing on the flop.

[Guillaume Gleize]

This situation can be complex because so close to the rule of the premature board rules.

Some floor may argue that it was a raise, that the change must be put back in the pot, that the board must be taken back to the deck and that the opponent player must choose to call or fold before a new board is tabled. Another argument is that there were no action yet on this new round (that could penalize a player) ...

BUT ...

But there is NO amount problem (both player did bet the same amount) AND the betting round was OVER and we use a part of this old RRoP in our rulebook to manage this kind of simple situations:

Many many situations can occurs in this sector that I use to call the "ERRORS IN SERIES" and usually the floor will use the rule #1 and his gentle capacity of management following his vision of the best interest of the game ... But to make it simple we do:

1- The end of a betting round with new cards on board makes the pot complete on wrong bets IF there is no difference of amount between the players (our case here). If differencies: board taken back and amount adjusted.
2- Substantial action after the new board cards makes the board STAND even if differencies before the board. The floor will just decide the amounts that will be ajusted to witch players (only if clearly identifiables and usually the first bettor) as a kind of "accepted action".

I know it may sound too simple but this is just our main guideline and for sure the rule #1 is still there if needed!

An example:

Preflop (all players betting in silence):

A bets 2000
B raises 5000
C calls 5000
D calls 5000
Tired Dealer mix the pot (the full tired table don't react) and turns the flop
A check
B bets 10000
C calls 10000
D stops everything and realise that A was short of 3000 ...
A agree to be short but what?

1 - Do you oblige him to put 3000 (he never said "call")?
2 - Do you oblige him to fold and loose the 2000?
3 - Do you oblige BCD to take back 3000 each?
4 - Do you retake the Flop?  

[Nick C]

Guillaume,

I think we need to establish a firm rule. Without a verbal declaration, placing too many chips into the pot, will be considered the intended amount of a wager. This will include; failure to retract a lesser amount i.e., a blind or lesser amount from the current betting round, while adjusting your intended wager.

In your recent example: Once Player A checks after the flop, I would rule his hand dead. This can get tricky because if Player A were attempting to call, he should have spoken when he realized the dealer was about to burn and turn prematurely. By his check, I can only assume he is trying to see the turn and river at a 3000 savings. If he tried to stop the dealer before the premature flop, that's a different story. The dealer would announce to the table that the current flop can not remain. The option would be extended to the skipped Player A, where he would be allowed to fold (surrendering his 2000), call the additional 3000, or even raise. I, however do not like the option allowing him to raise but, that is the way the rule is written.

I like to compare this situation, for NLH, with a player tossing a single 100 count chip into the pot when the amount required to call is 25. As we know, his action is only a call. Take the same betting round, except the initial bettor tosses a 100 count chip...the bet is now 100. Players must learn to make their intentions clear, whether betting or calling or raising, too. Without explicit rules, players will always be at the mercy of the "floor."

[Guillaume Gleize]

TY Nick.

Yop in my last example I only hesitate between solutions 1) and 2) ... With (like you) a light tendencie for the 2)!
But imagine the player A really sincere with a good hand (preflop and flop): I think that to kill his hand while he never said "fold" and while nobody noticed the silent raises ... Well this is not so obvious and easy for the floor right?

GG

[MikeB]

Many many situations can occurs in this sector that I use to call the "ERRORS IN SERIES" and usually the floor will use the rule #1 and his gentle capacity of management following his vision of the best interest of the game ... But to make it simple we do:

1-A) The end of a betting round with new cards on board makes the pot complete on wrong bets IF there is no difference of amount between the players (our case here). 1-B) If differencies: board taken back and amount adjusted.
2- Substantial action after the new board cards makes the board STAND even if differencies before the board. The floor will just decide the amounts that will be ajusted to witch players (only if clearly identifiables and usually the first bettor) as a kind of "accepted action".

I know it may sound too simple but this is just our main guideline and for sure the rule #1 is still there if needed!

I can't offhand find a problem with either 1 or 2.... they look pretty solid. Note the difference between 1-A and 1-B (I added the A and B to set them off). Good material for discussion of this issue at the 2015 Summit.

[K-Lo]

Personally, I lean toward option 1. I really don't like killing hands of players. The fact that A checked after the flop signals to me a desire to continue with the hand. Therefore, he is deemed to have called the pre-flop bets, and thus should make the pot right. Make A put in the 3K. Hand is live, play continues. IMHO